Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: tnppdl act in Vasudevan vs State Represented By on 19 December, 2025Matching Fragments
The Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction made in S.C.No.8 of 2019, on the file of the Principal District and Sessions Court, Virudhunagar at Srivilliputtur.
2. The Inspector of Police, Srivilliputtur Taluk Police Station laid a final report against the appellant/accused that the defacto complainant is a retired teacher residing at Nachiyarpatti and the accused belongs to the same village, that the accused has got quarry permit for the land in Survey No.319/3 for the period from 10.02.2004 to 09.02.2009 and during the said permit period, the accused also quarried mineral found in the adjacent lands in Survey No.588/12 classified as cart track poromboke and Survey No.588/14 classified as lake poromboke with an intention to commit the theft of the same, that the accused had quarried about 5181 units of stones without any permit and thereby caused loss of Rs.18,13,350/- to the Government, that the accused also caused damage to the Government property and to correct the same, the Government has to incur Rs.18,58,144/-, that the defacto complainant made petitions against the accused and hence, the accused threatened him with dire consequences and that the accused thereby had committed the offences under Sections 379 and 506(i) I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act.
(b) P.W.1 sent so many complaint to various authorities, but there was no action. Hence, he filed a petition in Crl.O.P.(MD)No.14849 of 2010 seeking registration of the case and obtained orders on 18.10.2012. In pursuance of the said orders, P.W.10 – then Sub Inspector of Police, Srivilliputhur Taluk Police Station, received a complaint from P.W.1 under Ex.P.1 and registered the case in Cr.No.8 of 2013 against the accused for the offences under Sections 451, 379, 506(ii) I.P.C., and Sectin 3 of TNPPDL Act and prepared the F.I.R., under Ex.P.6.
14. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.Side) would further submit that the charge framed against the accused contains the necessary and required particulars, that the accused was fully aware of the case of the prosecution and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 06:20:28 pm ) participated in the trial and that even assuming that there are some errors in the charges, in the absence of any prejudice caused or that failure of justice occasioned, that will not vitiate the conviction. He would further submit that the ingredients for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., and for the offence punishable under Section 21 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act are different and that there is no bar for the police from taking action against the persons for committing the theft of sand and minerals by exercising power under the Code of Criminal Procedure and that therefore, since because fine was imposed under the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulations) Act, that by itself will not debar the police from registering the case and from prosecuting the accused for the offence under I.P.C., and TNPPDL Act.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 12/01/2026 06:20:28 pm )
33. In the light of the above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the learned Sessions Judge has rightly convicted the accused for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C., and Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act and as such, the conviction is liable to be confirmed.
34. The learned Sessions Judge sentenced the accused one year Rigorous Imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to undergo one month Simple Imprisonment for the offence under Section 379 I.P.C. For the offence under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, the learned Sessions Judge, after sentencing the accused for one year Rigorous Imprisonment, in respect of fine, awarded compensation of Rs.18,58,144/- probably under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C. But Section 3(i) of TNPPDL Act mandates punishment with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 5 years and with fine. Since the imposition of fine while convicting the accused under Section 3(1) of TNPPDL Act is mandatory, the punishment imposed by the learned Sessions Judge for the said offence cannot be considered legal. If this Court converts the compensation as fine, that will amount to enhancement of sentence and that cannot be done without hearing the accused.